The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GingerBread Lane[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable holiday display, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google brings up only brief mentions in local news. References provided are largely to primary sources promoting the event. Prod was contested without comment or improvement. RadioFan (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not a wikipedian. I am merely the owner of GBL. I paid someone to write the piece, and am presently paying someone who is WELL VERSED in wiki to redo the wiki page to not only make it look like a wiki entry but to further add in the relevant references. GBL was seen in 2010 by over 100,000 people. I think it is as relavant as say, the piece on Kevin Sousa a chef of a local restaurant, who has merely 2 actual links that dont go to his own restaurant. In short, I have 8 active links that do indeed go to news stories. In the past, there were more news stories, I am now learning those things dont stay active forever. In short, the web designer who specializes in wiki will have it looking wiki - appropriate in the next 48 hours and all the news references working. But I can assure you - an exhibit that over 100,000 visit annually is remarkable. 71.236.97.1 (talk · contribs) 23:57, May 16, 2011 (unsigned post)

Delete - the sources are pretty weak, and if the article has been written by people who were paid by the owner of the exhibit, that suggests a strong conflict of interest that will make the article more difficult to sort out. But I will try to edit it into a salvageable form. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there is definitely a conflict of interest there. SteelIron^Talk 04:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For starters, Mr. Lovitch, you should fire that "well versed" editor who "specializes in wiki"; they clearly know nothing about Wikipedia. The article is in dreadful shape; he/she doesn't even know how to cite references. In the second place, Wikipedia strongly frowns upon paid articles (although it doesn't forbid them); the mere fact that somebody paid someone else to place an article here suggests that the subject is not notable enough to have earned its way here through notability. I am holding off on an up/down recommendation right now, but it does look as if some of the news articles are more than passing mentions (e.g. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). I will wait to see the promised improvements. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment One possibility is to merge and redirect to Hyatt Regency Crown Center (once the current content is cleaned up of course). Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling (unclear, like most of the article) that this is a "traveling" exhibit, which goes to different locations or is set up in different places in different years - not just a Hyatt Regency affair. I could be wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having the same difficulty. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article mentioned earlier at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05327/611639.stm has some more context: it sounds like the creator invented this project in Kansas City, took it with him to Washington D.C. when he moved there, and is now living in Pittsburgh and running it there. Lack of clarity on this point is one of the things that is making it difficult for me to understand how to improve the article. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Melanie N, still learning how to do this commenting thing. The web designer doing it for me isnt done. it is as is right now because someone put the entry in, without being asked to do so and clearly not understanding wiki. I emailed wiki and got a response from wiki saying it needed to be done by someone with no stake in GBL. So that is why I paid and contracted someone to do it for me, based on thier reccomendation of having someone with no stake in GBL fix it. They should be done today. To clarify, it is indeed a traveling exhibit. Been at Smithsonian, Rockefeller Center, Hyatt, Marriott, One Oxford Centre, has no home. But tons of fans and a lot of people who come see it, which is why it was reccomended to me to have a wiki piece done on it. Major improvements should be made tonite. If you look at the references shown, the Trib piece, the Gazette piece, the Martha Stewart Living piece, and the wash post pieces, you will see it has several notable news sources. Sorry for not knowing how to do this commenting thing. I shall make an attempt to learn. And I get you guys passion, it is clear that is why wiki isnt such a cluster anymore. Kudos. Kcdcchef (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Jon[reply]
Comment Still waiting for any improvement to the article. Today marks seven days since the article was listed, which is normally the amount of time allowed for discussion. Maybe the closing administrator could userfy the page to Kcdcchef instead of deleting it outright? (That means take it out of Wikipedia but put it in a private place where you can continue to work on it.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertisement for minor traveling show. Strongly oppose userfication to the COI account of Kcdcchef, who seems to think that a hired spammer somehow constitutes "someone with no stake in" promoting the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.